Chris Wedgwood wrote:
I'm using the i_size of directories in my patches. When reading
from a union directory, I'm using the i_size to seek to the right
offset in the union stack.
Ick. That'a a bit of a hack.
Don't think so:
1st dir: [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
f_pos=0 f_pos=i_size(1st)
2nd dir: [XXXXXXXXXXX|---------]
f_pos=i_size(1st) f_pos=i_size(1st+2nd)
^
| f_pos=i_size(1st)+offset
Since these "arranged" values are also used as the offsets in the return
dirent IMO it is quite clean.
Hence the value of 20 I guess --- assuming nothing will stack this
high?
Nope. This value is kind of traditional: tmpfs is using it
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103208296515378&w=2). I
think a better value would be 1 (one) since this is also used as the
dirent offset by dcache_readdir().
I personally would prefer that to be honest or some other way that
doesn't change i_size.
The i_size of a directory isn't covered by the POSIX standard. IMO, it
should be possible to seek in the range of i_size and a following
readdir() on the directory should succeed. But this isn't possible even
not with real file systems like ext2.
But keeping the i_size bound to zero even if the directory contains
entries does not make sense at all.
Jan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |